The Blue Board

No one's "means" should include starving, constant illness, etc.

Then they should do something about it.

So you're ok with some people getting assistance. Do you have the time to figure out who deserves what? Wouldn't be easier if you could just contribute some $ to a common fund and let a 3rd party decide who needs what?

Oh wait . . .

I'd also like to add that, were a group of leaders to do what I suggested and balance things out, I'd be more willing to listen to ideas for taxation to pay back debt. But ffs, don't tell me we're adding expenditures to the problem and then ask me for money. A person could hypothetically start evading taxes with cash deals...hypothetically...

Thanks for an example of a solution.

Oh wait . ..

You think the government--who has never successfully and efficiently run any single program in its history--should be that third party rather than charity organizations that actually do so successfully and efficiently, by and large?

The government is the most inefficient and corrupt organization in the country, but so many people want them running even more programs. Please explain the logic, assuming there is any.

Is there end to who receives the food, healthcare, housing . . . . ? Kind of expensive if everybody decides to get everything through the government.

I'm well aware of that fact. And regional medical centers get their $$$ from taxpayers, as you say.

The guy I'm discussing this with has a problem with the government taking money from him and distributing it, stating that "I'll take care of mine and you'll take care of yours." In other words, he doesn't want to pay taxes that fund programs that help people less fortunate than he is.

That includes the $$ that goes to regional medical centers.

Taking his philosophy to its logical conclusion, this "free healthcare" would disappear, thus leaving the people who can't afford to pay for health care on their own dead. That's what I was talking about when I said "only the strong should survive."

I appreciate the passion, but I find that name-calling really weakens one's argument. My previous post took into account the situation you described, and in fact was anticipating a scenario in which it was no longer available, due to no more taxpayer dollars funding. I think your assessment of me as a "stupid piece of ****" was a bit premature.

That isn't all that black and white.

Right now the system is abused, our current administration has no plans to fix it, where do you draw the line?

It's one thing to say the system is flawed and abused, a point I agree with. It's another to say we shouldn't have the system at all.

I don't know. I know there are members of our society who currently contribute nothing to it financially, but drain resources. That doesn't just include the people on welfare, but the mentally handicapped, disabled folks, whether they are veterans or others and people with terminal illnesses. Oh, and babies/children/stay at home parents, etc.

Basically, if you don't have a job, you're taking up resources while contributing nothing to society.

I think your scenario of "I'll take care of mine, you take care of yours" works in small town settings, but at a certain point, the population gets big enough to where, by the law of averages, you're going to have people who are born who do not contribute as much as others. I am under the impression that you have no sympathy for people so situated and if they are unable to fend for themselves, well, tough luck.

Feel free to enlighten me if this is not your view point.

Again, you're equating moochers and leaches with people who actually need help. It's all fine and dandy to say things like, "Just take care of your own," but some people are trying very hard to do that and it's simply not enough. Those people need help. That's not wrong.

My question is what if people cannot care for themselves? Terminally ill individuals / mentally handicapped people / permanently disabled individuals.

I don't believe that the government should just pay otherwise healthy people to not work indefinitely. I also realize that times are very tough and when that happens, some people are going to need more time to find gainful employment. Is a year enough time? 6 months? 3 months? 2 years?

There's a big difference between a skilled laborer who's been laid off, and the person who won't get off their couch.

The healthcare issue . . . man, that's tough. On one end, you don't want anyone who needs help to be denied, but look at the people who willfully make horrible health decisions and then become a burden to society because of it? Smokers and overweight people put a pretty big burden on health care; I think everyone agrees that if this nation took better care of itself physically, there would be a lot less stress on the health care system.

Then again, my grandpa just beat lung cancer and the gov. paid for most of it. He's a Korean war vet who worked his whole life, raised 3 daughters (my mom and my aunts), been married to my grandma for 60 years (and counting) and smoked for 35-40+ years before the dangers of cigarette smoking were known. Had been 20 years or so since he had a cig, but ended up with cancer regardless. At this stage in life, there's no way he could afford the treatments himself.

In that scenario (and I admit I'm a bit biased), I have little problem with the government helping him out. Not only did he serve in the military, but was gainfully employed from the time he left the service till the day he retired. I feel that he contributed a lot to society, and in return for that service, he was entitled to some assistance.

I have no doubt that there are many stories out there like my grandpa, and I'd suppose a look at the individual scenarios is required before you can declare that someone deserves or doesn't deserve assistance for healthcare. Not sure where to draw the line though . . .